MARITIME SAFETY in the HIGH NORTH – RISK and PREPAREDNESS Nataliya A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Brage Nord Open Research Archive ISOPE-2016The Twenty-sixth (2016) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes (Rodos), Greece, June 26–July 2, 2016 MARITIME SAFETY IN THE HIGH NORTH – RISK AND PREPAREDNESS Nataliya A. Marchenko1, Odd J. Borch2, Sergey V. Markov3, Natalia Andreassen2 1Department of Arctic Technology, the University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen, Norway 2 Bodø Graduate School of Business, University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway 3Institute of Complex Safety, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Arkhangelsk, Russia ABSTRACT In this study, we focus in particular on 3 regions: Norwegian areas around Svalbard, along the coast of mainland Norway and on West- Increasing human activity in the Arctic creates great concern about Russian Arctic in the Barents Sea up to Novaya Zemlya (Fig.1). This possible accidents and their consequences for life and nature. The sector creates the gateway to the Arctic and in the case of global sufficient level of preparedness for emergency cases should be defined warming the development here, especially on Svalbard, will serve as a and secured. On the base of previous assessment of activity level and model for the changing in other regions of the Arctic. Situation which risk matrix and analysis of existing search and rescue resources, the we have now on Svalbard (tourist vessel with 3000 passengers on 80 estimation of preparedness system has been done. Three regions oN, for example) can be repeated on Greenland, North of Canada or (mainland Norway, Svalbard area and Russian part of the Barents Sea) Franz Josef Land or Novaya Zemlya with characteristic problems. are under consideration and comparison. The international That’s why our study can have global perspective and interest. collaboration for safety on the sea is very important in the border area. KEY WORDS: maritime; safety; risk assessment; preparedness; Arctic; navigation; accident; INTRODUCTION The modern development of the Arctic creates a need for understanding of the risk factors, risk mitigating tools, and adequate rescue system capacities in the different area. Safe maritime operations in the High North depend on the risk assessment, preparations and preparedness of the companies involved as well as the government. Activities in the Arctic are challenged by limited infrastructure, long distances and harsh weather conditions. The presented work is the part of MarPART (Maritime preparedness and International Collaboration in the High North) project, where the researchers and responsible for safety organizations of all the countries of Atlantic Sector of the Arctic on the base of activity and risk estimation should find the way of cross-institutional and cross-country partnership (Nord Universitet, 2016). That is especially important on High North with rare population and limited rescue resources. Activity and probability of accidents differ in various parts of the Arctic, due to geographical, economic and historical reasons. Figure 1. Three regions under consideration. Base map is “Norwegian rescue service's area of responsibility” (red lines) (BarentsWatch, 2013). Key ports and rescue centers are shown The paper aims to analyze the rescue system resource capacities. It is number hundred times more than tankers and 10 times more than necessary to discuss the preparedness system considering the volatile refrigerators and loader ships. environment, activity levels and risks assessments done for these three regions of the High North. The article starts with describing main characteristics of the studied regions and risks for consequences from different unwanted events and different types of vessels. Then SAR resource capacity is analyzed for each area. Elaborating on crucial factors which may challenge the system capacities we discuss the main suggestions for improving SAR resource capacity and conclude about needed efforts in the preparedness system development. THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE STUDIED REGIONS 1) Svalbard region in defined limits has area approximately 850 000 sq.km and only near 2800 population. Natural conditions characterize by long polar day and night; harsh weather with low temperature and wind during all the year and sea ice in the North. There is very small Figure 2. Number of calls on 3 ports for 2012-2015 (Kystverket, 2016) economic activity limited by fishery, tourism and coal mining in Longyearbyen, Barentsburg and Svea (mine has been closed at the end 2015, due to low coal prices). Among navigational difficulties are not sufficient charts, especially on east coast of Svalbard, reduced satellite coverage and sea ice on the North. Coal mining, fishery, tourism and science/education are the main activities on the archipelago. They provide the reasons for marine transport and determine the type of vessels needed, as well as ship traffic patterns. Ship traffic density is rather low compared to that near mainland Norway and has large seasonal variation with summer peak, but the pattern is quite stable from year to year. For example, the number of fishing vessels changes from 10-20 in January-May to 30-40 in June-August, and again to 50- 60 vessels in September-December. 2) The water area of Mainland Northern Norway sector is approximately 800 000 sq.km and nearly 500 000 people leave in the region. Natural features are short period with polar night/day, strong influence of North-Atlantic current and often storms due to polar low. There is a high economic activity, rather equal activities along the region. Except fishery and shipping, oil and gas exploration and exploitation make the face of maritime life. Storms, icing, “Heavy traffic” on most common ship routes and ports are the main navigational Maritime activity is quite stable during the year without big seasonal variation. 3) Russian part of Barents Sea has area 1,400 000 sq.km and coastal Figure 3. The amount of port calls in Hammerfest (Norway) population approximately 700 000 people. Polar night/day long on the (Kystverket, 2016) North and Short on South; polar low; fading North-Atlantic current and strong influence of Arctic; sea ice, coming from Arctic Ocean and via For risk assessment (Marchenko et al., 2015) we defined three main Kara gate are the main natural features of the region. All economic groups of ship: 1) Tourist/Cruise ship; 2) Cargo/tanker petroleum activities concentrate in the South part, cargo shipping and fishery are Rigs/floaters; 3) Fishing vessels and 5 types of events:1) Grounding; 2) complemented by oil/gas exploration in south-east part. The amount of Collision (including sea ice); 3) Fire; 4) Violence/terror and 5) others vessels is quite stable during the year with seasonal increase due in (mostly technical problem on the ship). The combination of ship type summer to Northern Sea Route activity. Depending on weather and ice and events will give us possible variation of accidents, f.i. grounding of conditions, ships sometimes prefer the route north to the Novaya cruise ship (T-G), fire on fishing boat (F-F). Zemlya, rounding Mys Zhelaniya (cape of Desire) to the way via Kara Gate. Respectively in such cases there are some ships in the Northern The accidents statistics, AIS data , analyses of consequences (DNV GL, part of region. 2014b, DNV GL, 2014a, Sysselmannen på Svalbard, 2013, Kystverket, 2016), and expert opinions have been used for risk matrix creation, ACTIVITY LEVEL AND RISK ASSESMENT considering a risk as the amount of harm that can be expected to occur due to a specific event. The risk is then the product of the probability of In (Marchenko et al., 2015) we describe the maritime activity and accidents multiplied by the severity of consequences. We have provide risk assessment matrixes for environment and human beings estimated separately risk for nature and for people. For Svalbard region for these 3 regions. In the recent years the ship traffic in the regions the risk is mostly moderate as for nature and for the people, because the continues to grow, which can be illustrated by the number of calls in low density of ship traffic and low probability of accidents. High risk is the key ports. See Figure 2 and 3 as example. The difference between only estimated for people (passengers and crew) in case of Grounding the amount of ships of various types is so big that only logarithmic and collision of a tourist ship: with low probability, but significant scale allows to show the data in appropriate way. For example, for consequences; and in case of a Fire on tourist and cargo ships: with Hammerfest, passenger, fishing and offshore supply vessels have a call very low probability but serious consequences –. At the Norwegian mainland coastline, the frequency of grounding and b) fire among fishing and cargo vessels is quite high due to the number of 5 - Frequently vessels and operations almost all year round. There is a quite heavy 4 - Relatively F-G cargo vessel traffic along the coastline, and the probability of frequently grounding is quite high, especially in winter. 3 - Occurs C-G, C-F, T-F As for risk to life, fire on board of tourist and cargo ships is a serious F-F threat, and estimates a high risk. The probability of violent action and 2 – Very Rare T-G terror is extremely low. However, the consequences both for lives and for the environment may be disastrous. 1 – Theoretically C-V, F-V T-V The Russian part of the Barents Sea estimates the highest risk for possible environment in case of collision and fire on fishing ships and in case of minor moderate significant serious grounding and fire on a tourist ship. The high risk for lives is estimated c) for fishing ships in case of collision and fire; for cargo ships – in case 5 - Frequently of collision and for tourist ships- in case of fire.